36:35One notable issue addressed was the anticipated $1.1 million reduction in state aid, with potential for further cuts depending on future state governance and funding formulas. Board members emphasized the importance of crafting a budget that maintains academic integrity while addressing financial limitations. They discussed reallocating grant funds to ease the operational budget burden and identified programs like math intervention and band orchestra, which exceed state requirements, as potential candidates for reduction should financial pressures intensify.

Compounding these challenges, the board faced the repercussions of the New Jersey Department of Education classifying Highland Park as a wealthy district. This classification has historically resulted in high property taxes. The S2 funding formula, aimed at balancing educational funding across districts, has complicated the budgeting process. Despite data-driven decisions easing some budgetary justifications this year, the outlook for the next year remained uncertain, with federal funding cuts anticipated, particularly in special education and free or reduced lunch programs.

Enrollment figures played a role in budget discussions. The board criticized the reliance on an October 15th snapshot for state aid calculations, which failed to reflect the district’s transient student population accurately. They advocated for a more flexible approach, noting that enrollment patterns had already necessitated staffing adjustments, such as shifting from kindergarten to first-grade classes.

Another focal point was the district’s tax levy, projected to generate $34.3 million. Even with a proposed tax increase, the district remains below the calculated fair share. The potential for State Tax Levy Incentive Aid, which could provide up to $1 million for districts increasing their tax levies, was mentioned, although details about the application process and allocation criteria remained unclear. The board expressed concern over the timing of budget decisions, needing to finalize a balanced budget by April’s end, ahead of state support announcements.

Facility maintenance was another significant concern, with major repairs and investments deferred due to budget constraints. The board emphasized the need for prudent spending, particularly given fluctuating costs attributed to tariffs, and acknowledged that essential projects, including elementary math resources, were deemed too expensive and cut from the budget.

54:15They highlighted the financial strain of extracurricular trips, like a Quebec visit, costing up to $80,000 with insurance and travel expenses. This raised questions about prioritizing student experiences versus addressing achievement gaps.

The introduction of a new special education funding formula was seen as a positive development, accounting for individual student needs rather than relying on statewide averages. Yet, concerns about sustainability of this funding underscored the necessity for ongoing advocacy to secure legislative support. Board members expressed gratitude for the thorough budget work amid state aid cuts and the end of COVID-related funding, emphasizing the prioritization of academics in financial planning.

The conversation also touched on the importance of conservative budgeting practices in light of rising costs for supplies and repairs. Action items related to the budget included authorizing a tentative budget for the upcoming school year, adjusting for increased health benefits costs, and withdrawing from capital reserves for various projects. A potential $2 million facilities project highlighted the precarious nature of financial planning given aging infrastructure.

As the meeting concluded, the board approved various budget-related items, including a withdrawal of $2,281,800 from capital reserves for structural repairs and classroom needs. The meeting wrapped up with a motion to adjourn, without additional items for personnel or policy changes, and a nod to the upcoming St. Patrick’s Day celebration.